Outer London Transport

Steve O'Connell: Have you done enough for Outer London transport over the last 5 years?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question, AssemblyMemberO’Connell. Again can I thank you for your hard work on behalf of Londoners over the past 13 years.
To answer your question, yes, I have committed to improving transport for all Londoners, including residents of the outer boroughs. Many areas of outer London are dependent on national rail and bus services. Since I became Mayor, my fares freeze has saved the average London household over £200 while fares on national rail services have seen inflation-busting rises. Had the Government not U-turned on allowing TfL to run more commuter services, this could have been avoided and the quality of service improved. My Hopper fare has benefited those riders on bus and tram services in outer London and I have ensured that TfL regularly reviews its bus services to better balance public transport provision in outer London. Since 2016, TfL has introduced ten new services in outer London and extended six routes, as well as increasing frequency in many outer London routes.
TfL has also significantly improved its tram service. The timetable was overhauled in February 2018, making trams 15% less crowded in 2019 than in 2017 and meaning customers waited less time for a tram on average. We have increased capacity on the London Overground including an increase in frequencies on the Watford to Euston line and the North London line. As well as the ongoing rollout of electric class 710 trains on the network.
To improve access for everyone, nine outer London stations have been made step-free since 2016 and funding is protected to deliver six more.

Steve O’Connell: Thank you for your reply, MrMayor. I make no apologies for appearing somewhat of a broken record in supporting Sutton and Croydon in this subject. I probably started my term doing so and I am ending it in the same manner. As you have pointed out, outer London areas are more reliant than anywhere else on public transport and you indeed, MrMayor, want to get people out of cars. Sutton itself has the worst public transport facilities in London. I am reflecting upon your comments. First of all you talked about buses. Again, many people rely on buses and we had rather hoped that there will be a rebalancing of bus services from inner to outer London. We have not seen that, MrMayor.
The Overground, you have been lobbying for some considerable time, as was the previous Mayor, to extend the Overground from West Croydon to Sutton. That indeed has not happened and I will make no apologies again for bring a kind of voice crying in the wilderness for tram extensions. Money was taken out of the budget by yourself, MrMayor, to look at a tram extension into Sutton. I have not taken the accounts from Sutton from any blame here, because they must make a contribution.
My point here, MrMayor, is that Sutton and Croydon, over five years, we have not seen significant transport improvements and that is to be regretted.

Sadiq Khan: Let me deal with each of those three points. In relation to Overground, there was an agreement for those services to be transferred over to TfL. That agreement was broken by
[The Rt Hon] ChrisGrayling [MP] when he was the Secretary of State for Transport. It was revealed why. It was because of his unhappiness that the Mayor was now Labour rather than Tory, playing party politics with the transfer of commuter trains to TfL.
In relation to buses, I have a list of the improvements in outer London bus routes, including Malden Manor, which I can send you, because it is two pages long, if you want me to do so.
In relation to trams, it is a simple fact that £115million is the amount of money that is currently available. We at TfL are contributing £79million, but the two boroughs only £26million and £10 million, respectively. We need £516million to get a tram extension off the ground. If you can find ways to find the difference in funds, I am more than happy to do so. Our commitment is the same as the previous Mayor. The difference is who is going to make up the difference between our contribution and the total cost.

Steve O’Connell: OK, MrMayor, thank you for that. All I would urge is that you, if elected, continue to try to support Sutton and Croydon. I know my successor hopefully will be also a champion. It has been a long haul and the previous Mayor assisted to a degree, but not to the extent I wanted. You have not done so, with regret. I want to see more buses, I want to see more trams, and I would like to see Overground in the next five or six years. I will leave it at that.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I just say, another example of good manners and courtesy even though he disagrees with me hugely. I want to thank Steve and wish him all the best. He will be missed genuinely.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much, MrMayor. Before we move on to the next question, we are approaching guillotine time, so will the Assembly agree to suspend StandingOrder2.9B in accordance with the provisions of StandingOrder1.1H in order to allow the remaining of the business on the agenda to be completed?

All: Agreed.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much. Before we move on to the next question, I do have an intervention requested by AssemblyMemberDrMoore.

Future of our Police Stations and front counters

Tony Devenish: After 5 years, communities across Kensington and Westminster tell me they still have no certainty on the long term future of our Police Stations and front counters. This drives a very real fear of crime across all three of my Boroughs. Why have these basic property decisions not been made long ago?

Sadiq Khan: The Commissioner and I have been clear since the publication of the Public Access Strategy that each borough will be served by a 24/7 front counter while the number of buildings across London are rationalised. When the Public Access Strategy was under consideration in 2016 and 2017, we were doing everything we could to mitigate the impact of the £850million cuts the MPS had to find because of the Government’s austerity measures. The impact of these cuts was compounded by my predecessor’s failure to make the full use of his powers as Mayor to direct more funding from City Hall to the MPS, meaning the baseline funding for policing in London was much lower than it would have been if he had taken responsibility and increased the share of Council Tax raised for policing. In that context, tough decisions had to be made, prioritising money away from buildings and towards officer numbers and investing in the ways that Londoners want to be able to contact their police service in the digital age.
I welcome the Government’s belated decision to fund the recruitment of more police officers across England and Wales. The Commissioner and I believe that 6,000 should be allocated to London. So far we have been allocated just over 2,700 officers. The MPS’s new estate strategy is being formulated at present and will come forward for ratification later this year, but I must add the difficulties inherent in making long-term decisions on police buildings when future funding remains uncertain. The safety of Londoners is a top priority for me. While my latest budget gives the MPS some certainty on funding for the next four years, there has been no such assurance from the Government. I urge Assembly Members to support our efforts in lobbying the Government on this point.

Tony Devenish: MrMayor, good morning. My colleague, FelicityBuchanMP, wrote to your Deputy Mayor [for Policing and Crime] on 24February[2021] about our two police stations in North Kensington, Notting Hill and Royalty Studios. Although she has chased a response, no response whatsoever about North Kensington police stations. Can you confirm to me that you will chase that response before purdah, please?

Sadiq Khan: Happy to give that assurance, Chair. Thanks for raising that, Tony, I will chase that up.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. In terms of your earlier comments, MrMayor, you are the Police and Crime Commissioner for London. I just wanted to read you one of my local Member of Parliament’s (MP) tweets about a typical Friday night in London to you:
“At 6.56, police were called to a report of a man suffering a stab injury at a residential address in Croydon. At 7.15, four men, all in their 20s, received stab injuries in SW16. At 8.10, officers attended a residential address in SE25 where unfortunately a man had been stabbed to death. At 8.51, police heard about two men in their 30s attending a London hospital with stab injuries. At 9.12, police were called to an address in Croydon where a man was found in his 40s with a stab wound.”
MrMayor, this is not about politics. This is about people’s safety in London. Will you reconsider, particularly for places like North Kensington, where you are taking out the police station, as the fear of crime in our communities. It is three years this autumn since you announced police station closures. Nothing has really happened. It has gone at glacial pace. Residents are really concerned about this. Do you accept that?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, we have had some remarkable questions today. TonyDevenish wins the prize for the most remarkable question. No mention of how the victims are doing and their families. I am hoping everybody is recovering. He is asking a question where he used examples of awful injuries sustained by Londoners in parts of London far away from the police stations he is referring to, which demonstrates the fact that it is a party political point rather than questioning the issue of policing our great city. What is really important is to recognise that:
“Londoners have reportedly told us that putting more officers on the street is their top priority, not keeping them hidden behind desks in offices which the public rarely set foot in.”
Those are not my words. They are the words of one [The Rt Hon] BorisJohnson [MP, former Mayor of London]. BorisJohnson closed down 76 front counters during his --

Tony Devenish: MrMayor, you have been Mayor for five years now. If you continue going on about the history, if you were Prime Minister would you talk about [William]Gladstone [former Prime Minister] still? The reality is, you are the Mayor, you have had five years of failure on every subject. But, as we saw the terrible events last week of SarahEverard, you have been a complete failure on law and order in this city. A complete failure. In 49 days’ time Londoners have the chance for a fresh start. I will leave it there, Chair, thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Chair --

Tony Devenish: No, do not take the time up from SteveO’Connell [AM], he is the next AssemblyMember on.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberDevenish. MrMayor, go on.

Sadiq Khan: It is question time. What you have heard in the last two minutes is a disgrace, connecting SarahEverard with my record on policing, and I hope the Member would reflect on that, apologise and --

Tony Devenish: Londoners will reflect, MrMayor, on your record.

Navin Shah: Can you allow MrMayor to answer?

Tony Devenish: Thank you, Chairman.

Navin Shah: MrMayor, do you want to complete what you were saying?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am absolutely speechless. Really, honestly, speechless.

Navin Shah: All right. Thank you, MrMayor. We have a supplementary question on this from AssemblyMemberDesai.

Challenges faced in London

Len Duvall: What have been your biggest challenges as Mayor since 2016?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. When I was first elected Mayor in 2016, no one could have predicted the challenges we would be confronted with over the following five years. We have had the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower, a tragedy we are still contending with as we continue to fight for justice. We have had a series of cowardly terrorist attacks that shook our city, and Brexit, a bad deal that has left our financial services and many other industries in disarray. We have constant Government austerity, which has left our police force, our affordable housing programme, our transport system and our community groups severely underfunded. Now we have this awful pandemic, which has cost so many lives and livelihoods.
I have always tried to support our communities through dark times, working with them, listening to them, giving them a voice and, above all, standing up for them and their values. What has constantly given me hope during these difficult times is the extraordinary way Londoners have fought together. There were the brave emergency service workers who ran to confront danger during terrorist attacks while guiding others to safety, and the Londoners who opened their hearts and their homes to residents of Grenfell. There are the small acts of kindness that millions of Londoners have shown to neighbours, friends and strangers during the pandemic, and the heroic NHS staff and key workers, who have saved countless lives and kept the city going in our hour of greatest need.
After the darkness of 2020, let us find some light at the end of the tunnel and the incredible London spirit we have seen this past year fuels my optimism about the future we can build together. With the right choices, we can ensure London is an even better city after the pandemic than it was before, a city that is fairer, greener and safer and that works for all Londoners.

Len Duvall: Thank you, MrMayor. Let us think further forward then. If you are re-elected, what is the key priority? You have outlined the general direction of travel, but are you saying your economic recovery strategy is the number one item because it encompasses all those issues that you have said?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, without any of us counting chicks, the role of the next Assembly and the Mayor is going to be making sure we make a rapid recovery from this awful pandemic. My mantra is going to be “Jobs, jobs, jobs”, trying to keep those people in work, who are currently working, trying to make sure we help them retrain and others retrain and also helping those who, having been made unemployed, get back into work. I am hoping the Government by September[2021] when the furlough scheme ends produces a national jobs guarantee. What we cannot afford to have in London in the 2020s is what we saw in the 1980s, which is millions of Londoners being unemployed and potentially a generation being lost. City Hall is going to be using its convening power to make sure we do what we can to focus and rebuild in our city and have the confidence and vision that our forefathers and foremothers had post-1945.

Len Duvall: Thank you, MrMayor.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor. That brings us to a close of the Q&A that we had this morning. Thank you, MrMayor, for answering the questions, and I wish you and all other candidates the very best for the forthcoming [mayoral and London Assembly] elections. Thank you, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 and Public Safety

Andrew Dismore: Do you agree that evidence at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 is a damning indictment of privatisation, de-regulation and the pursuit of profit over public safety?

Sadiq Khan: Andrew, in your last MQTs, I would like to thank you for nine years of service as a Member of the Assembly, for assiduously raising issues that concern your residents and often giving me a hard time in the process, rightly so. I also thank you for your longstanding commitment to improving our fire service and building safety, particularly in the wake of Grenfell.
The Grenfell Tower fire was a national tragedy and we owe it to the 72 men, women and children who died to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. While evidence is ongoing, it is clear that Phase 2 of the Inquiry is continuing to shine a light on the truth. The Inquiry has had evidence suggesting that profits were prioritised over the safety of people. This tallies with the [Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety] Hackitt Review findings of a sector willing to cut corners in a “race to the bottom”. The vast scale of the building safety crisis that has emerged since Grenfell proves these problems are systemic. It is sadly clear that somewhere along the line public safety became an afterthought when it should have been of paramount importance. The Minister has described cutting “the red tape” by introducing the new planning reform
White Paper. This raised alarm bells with me and then in the Grenfell community and I have sent my response to the proposals. When it comes to fire safety, so-called red tape saves lives.
My new London Plan does introduce fire safety considerations into the planning stage, ensuring that safety is considered from the very beginning of a building’s life cycle. New homes on GLA-commissioned land via my Development Panel are now required to meet higher standards than building regulations. Finally, I call for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to make interim recommendations on the grounds of public safety.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for your kind comments at the beginning and for your very full answer. It is a case, is it not, that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 has put into sharp focus ineffective regulation of the building control that allowed - can even be said encouraged - profiteering at the expense of safety by installing flammable cladding on Grenfell and, as we now know, on hundreds of other buildings, jeopardising the safety, financial security and, indeed, mental health of many thousands of residents?
Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) told Rydon, the main contractor, not to add further fire protection but participated in deciding on cladding panels which reduced fire performance. Rydon, the contractor, in turn promised five times to appoint fire safety advisors but failed to do so. Arconic, the cladding manufacturer, knew that the panels were not suitable for building facades in Europe and had failed in-house tests. Celotex, who sold the flammable insulation used on Grenfell, marketed a product that it, too, knew had failed in-house fire tests. It is the case, is it not, that the Conservative Government’s response has been ineffective, bearing in mind all those facts?

Sadiq Khan: Your question lists a litany of failure, a direct consequence of deregulation, ‘cutting red tape’. You forget that this fire occurred in the summer of 2017, almost four years ago. I am afraid the response from the Government has been piecemeal and not addressing what is at the core of this. My worry is this; that there are many, many buildings across London, indeed across the country, where people are still having anxious, sleepless nights because they know they are living in a building which, for similar reasons, is also unsafe.

Andrew Dismore: I am pleased to see that you do agree the Government’s response has been piecemeal because that is what I was going to put to you. Years on, it still has not bottomed out the consequences of these scandalous failures. It started with a woefully inadequate fund for aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, then a second fund for other dangerous cladding, then an extension of that fund, then a pledge to protect leaseholders in buildings over 18metres. Then there were external wall survey (EWS) reforms that trapped leaseholders in dangerous homes, then it changed the EWS1 form rules, then there was a
Waking Watch Relief Fund that does not do anything of the sort, and so it goes on. London’s leaseholders are trapped in homes they cannot sell, cannot re-mortgage, struggle to insure and with waking watches they cannot afford.
Just how important is it that there is at long last a comprehensive, fully funded strategy to resolve the many risks in our built environment, both for London leaseholders and also for the London Fire Brigade (LFB) in its need to be able to respond to such incidents?

Sadiq Khan: I know, Chair, that AssemblyMemberDismore, like me, keeps an eye on what is happening in Parliament. He will be as pleased as I am with the vote in the House of Lords which took away the onus on leaseholders having to pay the cost of remediation. I am hoping that the Government accepts this amendment when it comes back to the House of Commons.
What the Government should be doing is stepping in, doing the remediation work and then later on having the argument or discussion with the landowner or the manager in relation to recuperating costs. It cannot be right. We do not have a two-tier system; we have a postcode lottery in relation to whose home is remediated. It is a mess. It is three and a half years on and we have made no real progress. I am hoping that progress is made urgently because in the meantime these homes are now albatrosses around the necks of the residents, who cannot sell them and are really, really stressed, not unreasonably, by not just the financial burden but the fact that they are living potentially in dangerous homes.

Andrew Dismore: That is right and it is right, is it not, that it is very difficult to have confidence in the Government, the Conservative Government, that voted down Labour’s proposals to put into law the Grenfell Inquiry recommendations?

Sadiq Khan: I would encourage members of the Government who voted that way to go to the Grenfell community and look into the eyes of those affected and explain why they chose to do so.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Children and Young People’s Play and Recreation Space

Nicky Gavron: You are the first London Mayor to include in your London Plan strong policies on play and informal recreation with space standards of 10 square meters per child and young person. However, given that the new census is happening this weekend, will you be updating the calculator used to assess the number of under 18s in a development to ensure your policies and standards are met and accurately implemented.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, if you will indulge me, before I answer the question, can I just thank Nicky for the many thoughtful and insightful contributions she has made to planning and the built environment over a career working on behalf of Londoners? Both my new London Plan and its predecessors have all been strongly influenced by Nicky’s passionate campaigning. It is also fair to say that without, Nicky, your active campaigning during the 1990s, there might not even be a Mayor of London and London Assembly today. For those Conservatives on this Assembly who dislike me, Nicky is to blame. Nicky, your vision and determination helped create the pressure for a citywide strategic authority to fill the chasm left by the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC) and Londoners thank you for that. I also want to say that on behalf of Londoners, I am sorry to see you go after 21 years, like Tony[ArbourAM] and
Jennette[ArnoldOBE AM]. City Hall is going to be a very different place, as will MQTs. Good luck in what you do next.
Play space is crucial for the wellbeing of children and young people and this has become clearer than ever during the pandemic. The GLA Population Yield Calculator gives an indication of the possible number and age of children that could be expected to live in a new housing development of a given bedroom or tenure mix. We will be updating this calculator once we have the data from the latest census. The calculation uses bespoke census data, commissioned by the GLA for this specific purpose. The ONS timetable for the release of 2021 census data is not yet detailed enough to give an accurate estimate of when an update will be possible, but it is likely it would not be before 2024. In the interim, we will continue talking to boroughs and developers to understand their needs and to develop tools so the system can make use of available data.
My London Plan, as you will be pleased to know, sets a hard bar for play space. All development likely to be used by children and young people is required to increase opportunities to play and be independently mobile. That includes the requirement you note for residential schemes to provide at least 10square metres of good quality, accessible play provision per child, a first in a London Plan. The Plan also explicitly requires play space not to be segregated by tenure, a really important requirement we developed following your own helpful advice and input.

Nicky Gavron: Mayor, thank you so much for that. Before I begin, I would just like to put on record my thanks. Of all the Mayors, you have been dealt the most difficult of hands and I just want to pay tribute to the way you have handled challenge after challenge with exceptional leadership. Thank you.
This question goes right back to 35 years ago when my first role as a local politician was as a chair of a housing subcommittee. Ever since then I have been trying to make sure that we get want we want, and we are nearly there. First of all, it is absolutely great that we now have a minimum of 10square metres per child or young person under 18 [years] on every single estate. There is still a little way to go because the calculator, as you said, is based on an outdated snapshot, a very outdated snapshot, of patterns of occupation and tenure from 12/13 years ago. Because it is outdated, developers are still not able, often, to provide enough space.
I have two asks. One - and you hinted at it really, which is great - is that when the new census comes out, information should be supplemented with some work done on tenure - look at how many build-to-rents there are and look at how much overcrowding there is now in private rented accommodation - and with patterns of occupation. Some post-occupation surveys, some supplementing. That is number one.
Meanwhile, because it is going to be another two or three years before we have this updated information, could we please look at some kind of weighting? I am very happy to work on the other side of this - I have already done some work on it - with Joanne[McCartneyAM] and with the officers, if that is OK.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, firstly, I am looking forward to - I hope they do do this - the [Nicky]Gavron[AM], [Jennette]Arnold[OBE AM] and [Tony]Arbour[AM] memoirs. I hope they are thinking about those because Nicky has touched upon some things I could learn from the work done 35 years ago as well.
To answer your question, yes. In addition to incorporating the 2021 census data, our update on the calculator will include a review of available evidence and data on the occupancy of new build homes. I would be more than happy for my team to pick your brains about what more we can do in this really important area. The last year, Nicky, has made everyone realise - even those without children - the importance of play space, not simply personal experience that parents and carers have but all of us. Our own personal experiences of the need for amenity have reminded us why this is important. Any advice and assistance you can give, I am more than grateful to receive that.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you. This is my final ask. You were very enthusiastic about this a couple of years ago when I asked this question and that was before the 10square metres were actually in the Plan. I said what an opportunity it was, given all the cuts in youth service and so on, to aggregate the 10square metres for teenagers, who are prohibited in all estates at the moment - no ball games - from playing any sort of sport activity. Those aggregated spaces should be put together to form some ball games areas in estates and that is something that you could put in your Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). My ask is: can we put it in the SPG and when schemes are referred to you, could you make sure that you reinforce that when the schemes come up before you, “Have you got the ball games area?”

Sadiq Khan: Yes. No, we have not yet and so you have raised a really interesting point, Nicky. Now that the London Plan has been published, I will ask my team to use the research recommendations to update the London Plan Guidance on how more guidance can be given in those areas of play and informal recreation. I am like you. When I visit estates - and I do all the time - I see those signs, saying “No ball games” and it begs the question, “What is it you want young people to do?” Rather than demonising them, we should be providing safe places.
You will be aware of our record sums of investment, led by Joanne[McCartneyAM, Deputy Mayor for Education and Childcare], Lib Peck [Director, Violence Reduction Unit] and Sophie [Linden, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime] around the Young Londoners Fund, has led to additional sports, education and cultural facilities. Let me look into whether an SPG is needed and, again, any thoughts you have are more than gratefully received.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you.

Wormwood Scrubs Green

Tony Devenish: What have you done to stop Wormwood Scrubs Green being decimated?

Sadiq Khan: Wormwood Scrubs is a precious public open space, a wildlife habitat and a crucial amenity for Londoners. My London Plan, signed off last month by the Government, affords the Scrubs the status of protected bush, forest and open land. Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) as the local planning authority reinforces protection in its newly submitted Local Plan, which includes a dedicated policy to protect the Scrubs as a cherished open space.

Tony Devenish: MrMayor, we can agree, for once, but could you please look into this as a matter of urgency? This is a very, very special part of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). It does seem that between the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and High Speed 2, they are not adhering to what was agreed in the planning. If the GLA could step in and look at this as a matter of urgency, I would be grateful. This is an amazing natural reserve for west London and it is being vandalised at the moment.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am more than happy to ask my officers to look into the concerns of the local Member. I am sure there is cross-party agreement that we all want to make sure there is no blight on this MOL. Can I take that away, Chair?

Navin Shah: Thank you.

Tony Devenish: Thank you very much, MrKhan.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much. The next question on the Heathrow expansion cannot be taken as the Green Group is out of time.

Cutting waste creation with your Green New Deal

Caroline Russell: Will your Green New Deal invest in new projects that can cut waste creation in London?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, AssemblyMemberRussell has been consistent on this, really chasing me on this area for the last five years, and I am grateful for that. I have been clear that our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic must be green and inclusive. As part of that recovery there is a Green New Deal mission that aims to tackle the climate and ecological emergencies and improve air quality, doubling the size of London’s green economy by 2030. To accelerate job creation for all, the Green New Deal will invest in a wide range of projects to help reduce carbon emissions and create green jobs. This will include new projects that cut waste creation in London, complementing my existing work on waste reduction focused on single-use plastic and recycling.
Through their borough reduction and recycling plans, councils are already required to set out how they would deliver improved recycling and food waste services. If implemented in full, these could increase London’s household recycling rate from 33% when I became Mayor to 40% by 2022. My Green New Deal is also providing an additional £1.8million of funding to the Better Futures and We London Business Transformation Programmes to support the growth of circular and sustainable small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Areas of focus cover key sectors, including food, the built environment, fashion and electronics, as well as disposable items prevalent in London, such as coffee cups, nappies and wipes.
Another part of my Green New Deal Fund is the Future Neighbourhoods 2030 Programme. Our Green New Deal mission will build on the foundation of the London Environment Strategy. I could say more, but I want Caroline to have a chance to ask me questions.

Caroline Russell: Thank you very much, MrMayor. Good to hear you talk about single-use plastic items like wipes and nappies. The point is, this is not about increasing recycling, it is about reducing waste that is produced in the first place. Your Green New Deal could focus on managing some of these common single-use plastic waste streams like nappies, wet wipes, period and incontinence products. Our Assembly work and the Nappy Alliance has found that waste authorities collect more than 100,000 tonne of nappy waste, while single-use disposable nappies create over 46,000 tonne of carbon emissions every year across London. My question: will you work with local councils, waste authorities, retailers, reusable nappy companies and maternity services to develop a London-wide nappy scheme that is fully integrated, reduces waste, and saves families and councils money, as a part of your Green New Deal?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I would like to thank the Member for raising this issue. I received a tutorial on this from ShirleyRodrigues [Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy] because it is a big issue of concern, as you know. I am more than happy for Shirley and the team to meet with the Member to discuss how they can make progress on this. I would just add that nappies make up a small proportion of household waste, I think it is 2%, and so dry recyclables and food are a key focus, for the reasons that you are well aware of and you have been lobbying on. That is our focus in relation to increasing the issue of recycling and reducing waste reduction. I am more than happy for the Deputy Mayor and the team to work with the Member, and others, to address the issue of nappies, which clearly is a big issue going forward.

Caroline Russell: Thank you. I will definitely take you up on that. The point is that this is about overall waste, it is not just about recycling. 2.3million tonnes of London’s waste was burned in 2019/2020. That is a lot of carbon dioxide and it could be reduced with more people using reusable products, which is why I asked about the reusable nappy scheme.
We do have to be very serious about reducing waste. Friends of the Earth are calling for London to be a zero waste city by 2030. Will you commit to making London a zero waste city by 2030?

Sadiq Khan: I do not have the powers to make more progress on this. You will be aware the power lies with the boroughs. That is why we made good progress in the Reduction and Recycling Plans. As a consequence of those Plans - and you will be aware that each borough has an individual contract, often with a company - we hope to see recycling rates improve to 40% by next year. I do not want to make a promise that I do not have the powers to deliver, particularly in the election season. All sorts of promises are being made where there is no real power to deliver. I have no problem making ambitious promises, but it will be realistic; those that I have the power to deliver on.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, this is about you setting an agenda for waste reduction. That has nothing to do with the recycling targets for the boroughs.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, that is wrong again, it is wrong. The boroughs have a Reduction and Recycling Plan. The first part is reduction, which is what you are talking about.

Caroline Russell: OK, but the point stands that London needs you to set an agenda of waste reduction. Thank you very much.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberRussell, you are out of time, thank you.

A Mayor For All Londoners

Peter Whittle: In February 2016, before you became Mayor of London, you stated: ‘I will be a Mayor for all Londoners.’ Do you think your aspiration has been borne out by events?
https://labourlist.org/2016/02/sadiq-khan-i-will-be-a-mayor-for-all-londoners/

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question, AssemblyMemberWhittle, and thank you for your work over the past five years. You have been a passionate advocate for the issues you feel strongly about. Although we do not see eye to eye on matters of policy, I appreciate the manner in which you have approached your work. I was elected to be Mayor for all Londoners and I have kept this promise in my mind every day of the last five years I have had the privilege of being Mayor. This means working for people in inner London and outer London, women and men, the young and the old, people from all backgrounds and with different beliefs, Londoners who voted for me and those that did not.
During the pandemic, we have seen the very best of our communities. But it has also revealed some stark health inequalities and structural prejudices that run hundreds of years deep and are still causing harm today. The people affected by them also need representing. These inequalities have been made worse by the decade of Government austerity, which has torn at the social fabric of our city. Crucial public services like schools, hospitals, and health services, youth services and housing, have all had their budgets slashed. That is why I have stood up for Londoners with, for example, insecure status, including the Windrush generation. I have been a strong ally of the LGBTQ+ community and taken action to close City Hall’s gender and ethnicity pay gaps. I have launched the Londoners Hub and the London is Open campaign. I have also worked with businesses, the public sector and trade unions to support the Good Work Standard. I have also appointed the city’s first Deputy Mayor for Social Integration, Social Mobility and Community Engagement, to lead on the important issues that I know both you and I care about passionately.

Peter Whittle: Thank you very much, MrMayor. Thank you for those gracious words at the beginning. I have very much enjoyed my time. I would ask you, you say very clearly, it was your running slogan, you were going to be a Mayor for all Londoners. Just after you were elected, we had the referendum. One of the biggest minorities in this capital were people who voted to leave, over 40% of people voted in London to leave. Do you think that you have been a Mayor for them in all of your actions in the years since in essentially trying to get the referendum negated?

Sadiq Khan: I do not know if that is quite fair, Peter, because initially I accepted the result of the referendum and I said we have to make it work. What happened was, when
[The Rt Hon] TheresaMay [MP, former Prime Minister] came back with the shoddy deal she did, what I said was this still is a million miles away from what the Brexiteers promised. In those circumstances we should put it back to the public in relation to: is this what they were voting for? But we have left the European Union (EU) now, the period has ended, and I accept the vote of the British public and I want to make it work. I am not keen to look backwards. I want to make Brexit a success for our country because that is where we are.

Peter Whittle: We have to look backwards, MrMayor, because you were very clear at the beginning, and here we are at the end of a term, you were very clear at the end you are going to be Mayor for all Londoners. If you were thinking of that 40% of people who voted to leave, you had a very funny way of showing it I would say.
Could you take this opportunity, maybe, particularly with the situation in London with the vaccine, etc -- you once called the EU to me, when I asked you a question, your “beloved EU”. Do you still think it is your beloved EU when you look at the way they have been behaving over the vaccine, the diabolical politics that they have been playing? Do you condemn that?

Sadiq Khan: I think it is possible to be a proud European, to be disappointed --

Peter Whittle: You are not a proud European, MrMayor, it is not a question of that.

Navin Shah: Can you allow MrMayor to answer the question, please?

Sadiq Khan: It is my fault, sorry, I did not give Peter a chance. I think it is possible to be a proud European, to be disappointed with the EU, and to think the EU have got it completely wrong in their behaviour in relation to the vaccines, not least yesterday. The threats being made by the EU president I think are wrong. What is important is that we put out our thanks to those in our country who have made the vaccine rollout so successful, not least the Government Minister [for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment], NadhimZahawi [MP], who I spoke to this week.

Peter Whittle: MrMayor, coming just right up to date, if you do not want to look backwards, we are coming right up to date to your Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm. The latest poll on that shows that 42% of Londoners do not back it. They think it is a bad idea. If you want to be Mayor for all Londoners, you should scrap this. It is a terrible idea.

Sadiq Khan: The most important poll that I am focused on is the one on 6May[2021], once the campaign begins. I am quite clear that when I look at the public realm in our city it does not properly reflect the contribution made by diverse Londoners, women, people who are disabled, black Londoners, Asian, minority ethnic Londoners, those from the LGBTQ+ community. I am unclear why you are so frightened of proper diversity. What are you scared of, Peter?

Peter Whittle: I knew you would say “frightened”. It is not a question of that. You are spinning it in a very, very positive way about representation, the implicit thing being that it is in the future. This was born at a time when you were very clear about it at the time, and it is about the removal of statues.

Sadiq Khan: No.

Peter Whittle: You said it in your press release when you said that London was born of a bygone era, which would indeed be history, MrMayor. The fact is that I have never known people be so demoralised and dismayed by this attack on, not just London’s heritage but on Britain’s heritage. This is Britain’s capital, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: The --

Peter Whittle: I mean it is not --

Navin Shah: Let MrMayor answer.

Sadiq Khan: There were people like you, including you probably, who were unhappy when we put up a statue of a woman in Parliament Square. Parliament did not come falling down. Parliament is still there. It did not mean that somehow [Sir] WinstonChurchill [former Prime Minister] or others were in some way belittled by having a statue of a woman there. Similarly, Peter, I do not think anybody else will feel frightened by street names, by murals, by buildings, even dare I say statues, to diversity.

Peter Whittle: You talked about removing them and when you originally announced this it was the height of all of those demonstrations. You are wheeling back a little bit on this now. But the fact is that London is Britain’s capital, so what happens here and what you have power over to do has resonance and means an awful lot to people around the country. You are talking about this country’s history and heritage. You did say about removal of statues, MrMayor, because I remember the press release, I went over it with a fine-tooth comb, 42% of Londoners do not want this, MrMayor. If you want to be a Mayor for all Londoners, please scrap it. It is a terrible idea. Thank you.

Learning losses in schools

Jennette Arnold: A new report from the Department for Education shows that learning losses in schools that have many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds were around 50% higher than those schools with very few pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. How worried are you about this generation of disadvantaged Londoners being left behind?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question, Jennette, and for your service to London over the past 21 years as an Assembly Member. Your campaigning on transport, on crime, on affordable housing, has been a real benefit, not just to northeast Londoners but to all Londoners. You have driven forward campaigns to end female genital mutilation in London, to address sexual harassment on public transport, to achieve justice for victims of knife crime. Your work for young people during the pandemic has been unrivalled. You have been Chair of the Assembly on five separate periods, using that role to engage Londoners, including through some excellent events or occasions including International Women’s Day. Some research Siân Berry [AM] did alerted me to the fact that no woman in our city’s history has received more votes than you. Quite remarkable. You have been a big sister to me, Jennette. The Chamber will not be the same without you, Tony [Arbour AM] and Nicky [Gavron AM], I can tell you that. I wish you the best for the future.
The anticipated widening of the attainment gap is deeply concerning for all of us who are determined to tackle inequalities and build a city where everyone can fulfil their potential. Education is of course the responsibility of central Government and they need to do much more. But I am also doing what I can to support our children right now. We know the pandemic has revealed and exacerbated the inequalities. I am particularly concerned by those children who are already struggling. My Violence Reduction Unit’s (VRU) inclusive schools and Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) mentoring programmes are helping some of the most disadvantaged children.
I have commissioned the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) to research and share practice that supports schools to reduce the number of children excluded or going missing from class. This work includes a focus on how lockdown has impacted students most at risk. Work will be done in councils. We have made helping young people to flourish with access to support and opportunities a key outcome of the London Recovery Programme. We are aiming that all young people in need have access to a personal mentor and all young Londoners have access to quality local youth activities. To support this, I am now investing £1million more on mentoring and support for children and young people. I am expanding my Stepping Stones programme to help vulnerable children transition from primary to secondary school.
We also need to help young people with the next steps and our £32million Good Work for All Fund will prioritise training, education and employability support to help Londoners gain skills and move into work in sectors key to London’s recovery. Jennette, you will know, we need to ensure that every young Londoner, regardless of their background, has a fair shot at fulfilling their potential.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you so much, MrMayor. We are the beneficiaries of the education system of this city. We are the legacy of the hard work that our parents and grandparents have put into this city. It has been a pleasure seeing you sitting in that chair as an inspiration for future Londoners. Can I just follow that to say Tony [Arbour AM], Nicky[Gavron AM] and I will accept the statue now? If you can get on with commissioning that, or I expect to see that as a recommendation.

Sadiq Khan: Jennette, whether it is naming a building, whether it is a mural, whether it is a street name, whether it is a statue, you, Nicky and Tony deserve that and then some.

Jennette Arnold: Absolutely. We are looking to see us mentioned in the recommendations of your commission. But, seriously, thank you and if I can just, MrMayor, also thank the Deputy Mayor [for Education and Childcare], my good friend JoanneMcCartney [AM], for all you have done in terms of placing children and young people at the centre of your agenda. If the polls are correct, MrMayor, you will be returning to
City Hall after 6May2021. I just need you to say, I know it is in your heart, but will you assure me that on your report you will make the issue of the catching up for young people really a central theme of any initiatives or work that you do? It is so important because we must prevent a lost COVID generation. We must prevent that at all cost.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, JennetteArnold was part of the team in the noughties, in the 2000s, that really addressed the issue of London being behind the rest of the country in relation to education. The divide between London children and the rest of the country was humungous. In the noughties, in the 2000s, huge progress was made and London schools did far better for our children. The thing that Jennette has articulated is all that progress being undone because of this pandemic. Many of our children have lost more than 100days of schooling. These are children who often do not have access to the tablets and the laptops they need. You are spot on about the need, not just to catch up, but to avoid the inequality being exacerbated. The commitment I give to you, AssemblyMemberArnold, is that, as long as I am the Mayor, our children will continue to be a focus of City Hall’s work, even though we have very little statutory power. I would like to thank you for recognising the huge work Joanne[McCartney AM] has put in, in this really important area, often not recognised, often behind the scenes, but really pushing this important agenda up the work of City Hall.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you.

Next Steps for Air Quality Improvements in London

Leonie Cooper: Areas of deprivation in London are often those disproportionately affected by poor air quality. You’ve done considerable work to address this public health crisis and clean up London’s dirty air, but you recognise that more work needs to be done. What are the next steps in improving London’s air quality - and through this, addressing some of our city’s inequalities?

Sadiq Khan: Air quality is indeed an equalities issue as much as a health issue. If you are less well off or from a BAME background, you are more likely to live in areas with the worst air pollution. It is an issue of social justice as far as I am concerned.
Thanks to the policies we put in place to tackle this since 2016, the number of Londoners living in areas exceeding the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has fallen by a massive 94% and the number of schools in areas exceeding the legal limit by 97%. Expanding the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in October[2021] is the next crucial step in tackling air pollution in London. Together with the tougher Low Emission Zone standards we recently introduced for heavy vehicles, this will contribute to all roads in London meeting legal limits by 2025. This is a milestone that would have taken 193 years to reach had we not accelerated action to improve air quality. I know many Members on the Assembly have consistently opposed my plans and some want to scrap them if somebody else wins the election on 6May, but we had better not name anybody, otherwise they may complain to the Chair that they are not allowed to make a three-minute speech explaining their position.
Léonie Cooper AM: MrMayor, it is unbelievable, is it not, that there are people who have supported only the central ULEZ but have rejected the expansion. They would like the expanded ULEZ proposed for October 2021 scrapped. Is there a shred of data that supports the idea that London’s air will be sufficiently cleaned up by implementing just the central zone? If not, how damaging to children’s lungs and older people who suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, asthma and so on, would scrapping the ULEZ expansion be?

Sadiq Khan: It is worth reminding people that there were no plans to have a ULEZ in London. Although there was sort of an idea that at some stage in 2021 there may be a ULEZ, I inherited no plans. We had nothing. We have the world’s first T-Charge in 2017, opposed by many in the Assembly. We then had the world’s first ULEZ for the central London area in 2019, which has seen the progress we have made.
The short point I make is twofold. First, according to independent experts, without our plans, it would have taken 193 years for our air to be lawful. With our plans we do it in six years. Secondly, why should outer London residents not see the benefits that central London residents see? Why have a two-tier air quality in our city? I am impatient for more improvements, rather than wishing to row back the progress made.
That is why it is really important to remind people that these were political choices we made, supported by many in the Assembly. I want to thank the Green Group and the Liberal Democrats for supporting us, and also the Labour Group on the Assembly as well. Over the next 40-odd days we are reminding Londoners who opposed us and who wants to scrap these plans.
Léonie Cooper AM: Absolutely, MrMayor. I certainly know that when we launched London’s first Low Emission Bus Zone in Putney High Street, it has done an awful lot to clean up Putney air, but it has not gone far enough. People in Putney and across outer London are crying out for the expansion to see further improvements.
I just wondered if there is one point that you could answer for me on the scrappage schemes which you introduced. Of course we have seen no action from the Government on a new Clean Air Act or indeed introducing a national scrappage scheme. How many low income Londoners, as well as small businesses, have you enabled to switch from older, more polluting vehicles, so that they can have ULEZ-compliant vehicles? It is not about punishing Londoners. It is about helping Londoners move on, is it not?

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, it is disappointing the Government still has not come up with a national diesel scrappage scheme. Secondly, my previous London scrappage scheme funds were opposed by some Members of the Assembly and this year I asked for additional funds, also voted against by some Members of the Assembly. So far, 4,000 people have been helped to take their dirty vehicles off the road and 4,800 businesses and charities have been helped taking their polluting vehicles off the road as well. It would not have happened but for those Members of the Assembly who voted for my budget, putting them through.
Léonie Cooper AM: It is fantastic to hear that there has been already that difference. Just one final point. We need the Government to allocate the VED to London, do we not? You will be calling on the Government to do that. But, if you were to introduce a boundary charge for those living outside London at the cost of a cup of coffee, I believe is the figure, £3.50 a day, do you think it would have any impact on air quality in terms of persuading people not to use cars to come in but to use other forms of transport?

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, I do not want to do this. I have no plans to do this. One of the things we have to look into is the feasibility of other plans to make sure we can pay for services in TfL. If the Government was to devolve to us the monies we raise through VED that would fill the hole we have because of the fares revenue collapsing because of the pandemic.
If there was to be a boundary charge, one of the things that TfL would look into is using the ‘polluter pays’ principle to incentivise people who do drive in to use cleaner vehicles rather than using polluting vehicles. That could be another way to improve air quality, but I am hoping we do not just go down that route because the Government supports us with a sustainability plan for our finances.
Léonie Cooper AM: A tiny silver lining in something that you clearly do not want to do. Thank you very much, MrMayor. Thank you, Chair.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

New Metropolitan Police Officers

Unmesh Desai: Why is it important that the Government provides you with the 6,000 additional officers yourself and the Commissioner have called for, and where are these new officers intended to be placed within the Met?

Sadiq Khan: Keeping Londoners safe is my top priority and I have invested a record amount in the MPS, putting an extra 1,300 police officers on London’s streets. I welcomed the national uplift of 20,000 officers that was announced in 2019, which should help fill the big gap left by the 21,000 officers that were cut nationally between 2010 and 2019.
I have supported the Commissioner in saying that London needs 6,000 of the new officers. So far, the Home Office has allocated just over 2,700 officers to the MPS, only 45% of the officers we need, and we have no clarity on how many will be allocated in the third year of the programme, which is affecting our ability to plan properly. We need all 6,000 officers because of the complexities and challenges that London faces as a global city. It is a fast-paced, dynamic and vibrant city. It is a focus for protests, visits by heads of state and
large-scale gatherings. Sadly, it is also a city at risk of terrorism and organised crime. The MPS must continue its progress in driving down the blight of violent crime.
The MPS intends to use the officers to strengthen investigation, specialist crime and neighbourhood policing, creating town centre teams and additional dedicated ward officers in high-harm wards. Ultimately, the deployment of these new officers is the operational responsibility of the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] and I support her having the flexibility to move them where they are needed most.
Not only must the MPS have sufficient officers but it must have the equipment, training and staff support they need to do their job. The Government has made huge and sustained cuts to policing since 2010 and I have always made it clear that these cuts have consequences. For my part, I have done all that I can to support the MPS. Since becoming Mayor, I have invested over £1billion in the MPS, more than any other Mayor of London, including diverting both council tax and business rates receipts to policing for the first time from City Hall.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you for that answer, MrMayor, and, yes, I do agree with you. Cuts have consequences. On the question of police numbers, we know that having the right number of officers is important for helping victims of rape and sexual offences as well as for a number of other reasons. There are now appallingly low rates of convictions when it comes to rape, around 3% only.
Are you therefore then disappointed that at a recent London Assembly meeting - and I am very upset about this; we like to keep party politics out of things when it comes to completion of the police numbers - where I prefer unanimity, members of the GLA Conservative Group failed to show support for your and the Commissioner’s call for 6,000 officers to be drawn into the MPS as part of the Government’s police officer uplift programme? They actually abstained. I come from the political background where I think you should have the courage of your convictions, either vote for something or vote against, but just abstaining and sitting on the fence?

Sadiq Khan: I was not aware of that. I thought there was cross-party support for 6,000 officers out of the 20,000. I am really pleased you told me that because that will help me over the next
40 days standing against a Tory candidate who sits on the fence and is not in favour of more police for our city. Thanks for that bit of intel.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, MrMayor. My other question, the [London Assembly] Police and Crime Committee heard from both the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and from the MPS that the lack of results has a detrimental impact for the number of rape and sexual assault cases that lead to conviction. We also know that victims of these crimes are facing an extra barrier at the moment with the huge court delays. Can you confirm that there has been any progress in establishing the new secure court facility in London that you called for to help resolve this issue?

Sadiq Khan: No, the bad news is that we do not have the large secure facility in London that we need to address the more difficult cases where you need those sorts of courts with the security and so forth. The Nightingale style courts that the Government is talking about for London do not address the issue that you and I are both concerned about, which is at the serious end of the spectrum. The problem is that will mean these trials will not happen until maybe one or two years after the incident. Therefore you can understand why the attrition rates are so high and why victims do not want to carry on with all the stressful criminal justice process if there is going to be such delay.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, MrMayor. Can I just finish on this note? I welcome your announcement yesterday of £3million in new services to provide targeted support for victims of violence against women and girls. Also, your call for the Government to update the Domestic Abuse Bill so that migrant victims are not afraid to report abuse for fear of immigration enforcement. I published a pamphlet on this issue last year. It is on my website. When it comes to domestic abuse in particular, or any serious crime, we cannot have a two-tier level of policing in London. All Londoners should expect support from the police when they report a crime. Thank you, MrMayor, for all the work you have done for the last five years to keep London and Londoners safe, despite the Government not giving the results that you quite rightly expect.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Transparency

Susan Hall: Do you think you've overseen a transparent administration as Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, I am confident that I have overseen the most transparent administration City Hall has ever had. Since becoming Mayor, I have attended
50 Mayor’s Question Time meetings and 23 Plenary meetings. I have been asked over 22,500 Mayor’s questions and I have made over 300 commitments following exchanges with AssemblyMembers. I have published around 1,600 [Mayoral] Decisions. In the first four years of my administration, I responded to almost 4,500 freedom of information requests, more than the previous Mayor responded to in eight years.
We put transparency at the heart of everything we do and our commitment goes well beyond the mandatory Local Government Transparency Code. We publish interests, gifts, hospitality and expenses for me, the mayoral advisors and the senior Greater London Authority officers. We publish details of senior officer responsibilities, salary data and a GLA organigram. Many things at City Hall have been done since 2016 and have never happened before. We have published over 950 datasets on the London Datastore, which averages over 125,000 users per month, helping Londoners understand their city and develop solutions to London’s challenges. We have published the results of our monthly poll of 1,000 Londoners, which we use to shape our decision-making. We publish gender and ethnicity pay audit data and action plans. We have signed up to the Code of Practice for Statistics, becoming the first organisation to do this voluntarily. We have preannounced publication dates for our statistics for enhanced transparency.
All my statutory strategies were consulted on widely for between 12 and 14 weeks, including public engagement through Talk London, representative polls, surveys of Londoners, focus groups, interviews and stakeholder and community engagement meetings. We approach London’s recovery from the pandemic with the same commitment to transparency. We publish regular data on the impact the pandemic is having on the city, along with agendas and minutes from the London Recovery Board and the Recovery Taskforce meetings. The London Recovery Board meetings are recorded and webcast live. I publish my diary and I publish my personal tax returns.
Not only am I committed to transparency but I am dedicated to engaging with Londoners directly so that I can understand their views.

Susan Hall: Thank you, MrMayor. Can you tell me why your draft budget published on 19January [2021] did not reflect December’s local government settlement with regard to the retained business rates safety net for the GLA?

Sadiq Khan: DavidGallie [Executive Director of Resources, GLA] has already explained the reasons why he was not earlier on confident about the business rates safety net of 97%. In any event, because the Government had changed its pooling arrangements for London’s business rates, his concern was that we would not have the same safety net. In any event, had there been that safety net advised to me earlier on, any additional monies from the safety net I would have invested in TfL - 85% of business rates goes to TfL - with the remainder, as I committed, to frontline services like fire and police. Those two are really important.

Susan Hall: For anybody watching this, we are talking about a discrepancy here of over £100million. It is no small amount. Why was it not published with caveats around the figure if you were still concerned?

Sadiq Khan: The Executive Director [of Resources, GLA] will be answering that when he comes before the Budget and Performance Committee, but he was quite clear. His advice was that there was a significant risk of a change in the GLA’s safety net. It was not published last year, either. It would not be prudent in the first draft budget to assume a higher level of safety net. You could imagine that if it had been published and we had decided to spend that money and then the safety net from the Government was changed and was not as high, we would have had to make further cuts to some of those services. His advice was prudent advice, which we followed.

Susan Hall: He will face questions on that tomorrow. It is a shame that yet again we have a meeting that we have invited you to and yet you have declined to come, which of course underlines your reputation as a missing Mayor. It will be interesting to see what emerges.
Can you tell me when you knew about this £100million?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure about that figure. The first time the issue of a business rates safety net was discussed with me was ‑‑ I was before you on 5January [2021] and 19January was the day you referred to. It was between those dates that the issue of a business rates safety net first came to my attention. We did not have any certainty about that until far later. One of the things I am sure our Executive Director would have been waiting for is the local government settlement, which did not happen until much later.

Susan Hall: When you came to the Budget and Performance Committee meeting on 5January, did you know about this figure?

Sadiq Khan: No, I do not think I did.

Susan Hall: You did not know about it? That is strange because it is so much money. The difference between the actual safety net and the prediction still used in the January budget, as I have mentioned, was over £100million of business rates income. Do you think that is an acceptable sum to keep away or hidden, in fact, from Londoners.

Sadiq Khan: Again, the assertion is unfounded. The Executive Director of Resources advised there was a significant risk that a lower safety net threshold might be set and that was particularly in the context of the Government deciding to abandon the London-wide pooling arrangement. It was not inconsistent with the Government changing its mind on London pooling to also assume the Government would change its mind on the safety net. There was no advantage to anybody in, in your words, of hiding the figure because we were keen to make sure that the Assembly was presented with all the information. That is one of the reasons why we presented three scenarios for full transparency.

Susan Hall: There is not transparency here. This was known about. This figure was known about. The draft local government settlement was published on 17December [2020] with a proposal that the GLA safety net be set at 97%. Yet neither was December’s consultation budget updated nor did the January [2021] draft budget include this information. I do not call that transparent.
There were plenty of other things with caveats around them in the settlement. This was £106million. Do you not feel that that should have been in the draft budget so that we could have looked at it?

Sadiq Khan: No. DavidGallie has been involved in draft budgets for previous Mayors as well and they are very serious aspersions you are casting against him. He was quite clear and he is quite clear that the certainty from the Government did not come until much later. I am not sure what conspiracy theory you are putting forward. I am quite clear that his advice was prudent, good, solid advice and that has led to us being able to have a good budget.
By the way, the budget we have published is 92 pages with a huge amount of detail. That is the same number of pages as the Government’s Budget with a far bigger amount being spent by the Government. That shows the level of transparency that we have under good advice from DavidGallie.

Susan Hall: Please stop trying to deflect. We are not talking about the Government. I am not talking about your Executive Director of Resources. I am talking to you. You are the one who says you are completely transparent. I am trying to find out when you knew about this and why this was not put into the draft January figures, which, given the amount of money it was, I feel it should have been and I am sure other people feel it should have been. Did you not query this? Did you not suggest that it should be as it is such a large figure?

Sadiq Khan: You misunderstand. The certainty did not come until later on. My first draft budget in January did not change the assumption made previously on the level of business rates assumed in 2021/22. There were a number of drafts. As soon as there was certainty, it was presented to me and in due course to the Assembly.

Susan Hall: Was the information kept out of the January budget because admitting you were going to receive over £100million more than you thought you would rather undermined your plan to increase council tax?

Sadiq Khan: No. Again, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Some 85% of business rates goes to TfL. I have made clear that what I thought was unfair was for the DfT to subsidise services in London other than TfL. The same proportion of business rates that I had previously committed to TfL was going to go to TfL. If you are suggesting that there is an advantage to somehow keeping this quiet from the Assembly, there was no motive to do so because what would have happened had we had certainty sooner is I would have simply announced sooner a greater share going to TfL and the amount of savings required from the police and the fire service to be even less. I have been quite clear from the first time the draft budget was published that my priority was going to be the fire service and the police. Subsequently, the Home Secretary made clear her expectation that council tax for the police precept must go up by £15. Subsequently --

Susan Hall: MrMayor, you know I am under time pressure. You are not answering the question. The whole question revolves around why that £100million did not go into the draft budget. You say you are transparent. I do not think that is very transparent. I am sure anybody transparent would not think that is transparent. It has had a knock-on effect because the delayed knowledge of this also had a key impact on the Assembly. At least 30 members of staff were put at risk because we started a consultation --

Sadiq Khan: Again, this is a misunderstanding --

Susan Hall: No, I am talking at the moment. This had a delayed --

Sadiq Khan: I thought it was Mayor’s Question Time, Chair.

Susan Hall: It should have gone into the draft budget and it did not. Therefore, this is not very transparent. We can look at it tomorrow and I am very sorry that yet again you will not be at a meeting. You are the missing Mayor. You have been a disgrace this year, quite frankly. We will talk in your absence tomorrow to see what happened to that money. Thank you, Chair.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, we have had a two-minute poor soundbite and not a question. Let me address the poor soundbite.
The only reason the Assembly has that additional money is not because of the business rates safety net. It is because of the additional monies raised through council tax because of the difference between the estimates given by council treasurers and the monies raised from council tax.
Again, it is a misunderstanding from the Member in relation to how the budgets work. Again, Chair, I am more than happy to take the AssemblyMember through this‑‑

Susan Hall: No, I would like to stop now because, as you well know, we are out of time. I do not need to be taken through this, quite frankly. Somebody should take you through it and you should be more transparent. I am handing back to the Chair now. Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I have been ‑‑

Susan Hall: No, enough.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ before the Assembly 17 times since last May [2020] in the middle of a pandemic. It is because she does not like the answer I give --

Susan Hall: Chair, enough, please. That is enough from our time. Thank you.

Navin Shah: OK. Thank you, MrMayor.

Sprinklers as the next step to fire safety

Navin Shah: I acknowledge the new London Plan and the Fire Commissioner/Fire Brigade’s measures to enhance fire safety through the requirement of sprinklers for residential buildings. However, the scope for this is very limited and nowhere near adequate. The evidence-based research shows sprinklers save lives. What is the strategy for promoting sprinklers in new residential buildings and retrofitting tall buildings to safeguard residential and ‘other’ buildings such as care homes and schools etc.?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, in your last MQTs, I would first like to thank you. Thank you, Navin, for all you have done for Londoners over the 13 years, including recently as Chair. Your campaigning for step-free access on the TfL network has helped us to make changes that will benefit all Londoners and your work on sprinklers has pushed this agenda forward. You were, Navin, the first Londoner of Indian origin elected to the London Assembly and, like Nicky[GavronAM], Tony[ArbourAM] and Jennette[ArnoldOBE AM], you have been a trailblazer. The work you have done for equality and justice for all, working with the local community to make real change over many years is much appreciated, not just by your constituents but by all of us in London.
My new London Plan takes ground-breaking steps to introduce fire safety into the planning system, ensuring it is addressed from the very beginning of a building development. All new homes on GLA land commissioned via my London Development Panel are now required to use higher standards of fire safety than building regulations, with sprinklers being mandatory. I have also banned flammable cladding, regardless of a building’s height. I have introduced the same requirements for housing providers wishing to bid for funding from my new Affordable Homes Programme.
Whilst I have taken important steps to increase the use of sprinklers where my powers allow, the real change has to come from Government, and that is why I have long backed the LFB’s campaign to vastly increase the use of sprinklers. The recent move by the Government to lower the threshold at which sprinklers are required for new buildings from 18metres to 11metres is welcome. By lowering the height threshold rather than removing it altogether, this still leaves a two-tier system of safety. It fails to take wider risk factors such as vulnerability of occupants into consideration and is typical, in my view, of the Government’s piecemeal approach towards building safety.

Navin Shah: MrMayor, thank you very much for your very kind words about me.
On the subject matter, I met the [Mayoral] Director of Policy and the Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience in late 2018. Acknowledging funding constraints, instead of setting up a £25million fund as the recommendation was in my report, I urged them to look at a minimal £1million towards a London sprinkler retrofitting fund in the budget to kick-start retrofitting of sprinklers, which would have delivered additional fire safety of £1,000 to 571 units. Regrettably, this did not happen.
Can I ask you why you have not established the retrofitting fund, as recommended in that London Assembly report? Will you commit to doing this if re-elected to enhance fire safety and save lives and costs?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, firstly, the simple reason why we cannot is because the money we get from the Government is ringfenced and there are very specific things we are required to spend the money on. Even if I am re-elected, unless the Government removes the ringfencing, we simply will not be able to do so. As it is - put aside buildings - the London fire service receives £20million more from City Hall than the Government recommends they should receive and they will be getting additional burdens on them. With any monies we have, the focus has been on supporting the LFB. There simply are not the funds available to address the really important issues that your report talked about and so I will carry on lobbying the Government for the additional funds to address the really important points made in your report.

Navin Shah: Would you put in a clear and effective strategy to lobby the Government to make sprinklers compulsory in every residential and other similar building in England, as is the case in Wales and Scotland?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, you are spot on. England lags behind Scotland and Wales. I will certainly continue to work with the LFB to champion the use of sprinklers and to urge the Government to take more action and to catch up with Scotland and Wales. Even when you are not on the Assembly, I am sure you will be continuing to put pressure on me to continue to pressure the Government to do right by the residents of England as well.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much, MrMayor.

Tony Arbour: Thank you, MrChairman. Thank you, MrMayor.

Social Housing

Murad Qureshi: Why is building social housing so important in London?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I would like to thank the Member for continuing to raise these important issues since his return to the Assembly last year. Building more social housing is my top housing priority because the need for more local rented housing is overwhelming. Of the total 65,878 new homes that the London Plan’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment shows are needed each year, two-thirds should be social or genuinely affordable. This need has been reinforced by the impact of COVID-19. Polling also suggests a quarter of private renters have fallen behind with their market value rent during the pandemic.
That is why I am proud that over half of the homes delivered under my new Affordable Homes Programme will be for social rent, and of the building progress made over the last four years, hitting every single delivery target in the Affordable Homes Programme for 2016 to 2023. To the end of December 2020, our delivery partners started 62,428 homes for the programme, 4,290 new council homes were started in London last year, the highest number since 1983, and 3,300 of these were supported by City Hall.

Murad Qureshi: Thank you, MrMayor, for that response. As you know, I concur with you on that front. What I want to bring up though is the scale of complaints in social housing. It is pertinent to come to you about this. You have mentioned your Affordable Housing Programme. You have environmental standards and design and safety standards. What thought have you given to customer service standards and the funding to ensure people living in homes receive the best possible customer services from the providers as well?

Sadiq Khan: You raise a really important point and it is a point raised regularly by the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development with colleagues at G15 and elsewhere, the housing associations. The GLA is not a regulator of social housing. I want to be quite conscious not to be ultra vires in relation to what we do. I am concerned about the number of cases around the poor service standards from some of our social landlords. We are looking at what we can do, in a collegiate way, to improve the quality of service many received. One of the reasons I have been lobbying for a Commissioner for Social Housing Residents is to push this very issue, because you are spot on in relation to the experience many of our residents have.

Murad Qureshi: Thank you for that. My observation is that it is from Barking Riverside all the way to Orpington in the west, it is not just people in social housing and shared ownership, and it goes beyond cladding issues. It is important we get the G15 housing association group on side, on their service levels. What can you do to improve them immediately?

Sadiq Khan: In relation to levers, we have very few. It is about conversations. One of the things that Tom [Copley, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development] has been doing is engaging with them to address this issue. They recognise it, by the way. I do not want to give you the impression they are malafides. They do get it and they do want to address this really important issue. That is why I think having a regulator would help them raise their game or provide the pressure that is needed to have service level agreements and quality of service commensurate with the challenges and the concerns raised to you and to me and others as well.

Murad Qureshi: I have referred some of these complaints to the Regulator of Social Housing and I have not got very far at all, unfortunately. I personally would like to see the Mayor of London have some regulatory powers, but that obviously needs primary legislation for that to occur.
What I do want to see, hopefully, MrMayor, that in a second term you would take on board these concerns when you are making allocations. There is a clear-cut pattern emerging. It is particularly with the big housing associations. They have properties all over the place and I am not sure their management systems are fit for purpose for covering all that ground. A local authority at least has it concentrated in a particular area. That is what I think is not happening with the G15. I think you are in a position in a second term to ask for that when you are making allocations for the future programme; that you have certain service levels that their residents and tenants can expect and that they will be maintained in future.

Sadiq Khan: The challenge is enforceability. We have built in, in the allocation of funds, standards around design, sustainability, safety and equalities. That is one of the reasons why I am lobbying for a Commissioner for Social Housing Residents, who would be that powerful voice to make sure, once a home is built and somebody has moved in, there is proper consistency and good quality of standards.
Unfortunately, on the point about the Regulator of Social Housing, their remit is more around economic and governance standards rather than consumer standards. The Greater London Authority Act limits my powers, but I would be more than happy to look into this with a Government willing to give us the powers. The Commissioner for Social Housing Residents, would it not be great if the Commissioner was a social housing resident him or herself? That would be really powerful.

Murad Qureshi: I look forward to that appointment in a second term.

Scale of Covid-19 impact

Onkar Sahota: Mr Mayor, over 120,000 people have died in this country from COVID-19, of which over 16,000 were Londoners. Why do you think this country paid such a heavy price?

Sadiq Khan: It is heart-breaking that more than 18,000 Londoners and more than 140,000 people across the UK have now died with coronavirus. Every one of these lives lost is a tragedy and my thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends.
It pains me that the coronavirus crisis has not only exposed but increased inequality in our city and across the country. I was concerned that London was not included in the Government’s coronavirus planning until the late stage, despite London’s status as a dense, international city and therefore particularly vulnerable to the spread of the virus.
I was first invited to a COVID meeting on 16March last year [2020] after which the Prime Minister announced that London was - and I quote - “a few weeks ahead” of the rest of the country. I immediately urged all Londoners to stop non-essential social contact and stop all visits to social venues.
The Government was slow to act on advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) to close schools and social venues such as bars and restaurants and was slow to introduce lockdown. It was slow to protect our borders and to adopt compulsory face-coverings on public transport, which I called for in early April. The Test and Trace system was inadequate and Government plans to support self-isolation remain insufficient. The Government has lurched from one bad decision to another, repeatedly making slow and poor decisions and making so many U-turns that I have lost count.
I have already said that there must be a full public inquiry when the pandemic is over. Unfortunately, it will show that the Government’s approach has cost many lives. Despite this, we should take heart from the inspiring way Londoners responded at a time of great crisis.
The lifesaving COVID-19 vaccine has now given us light at the end of the tunnel. It is a huge achievement that over 2.7million doses have now been given to the most vulnerable Londoners and health and care workers. I urge all Londoners to have the vaccine as soon as they are offered it.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor, for that answer. The impact of COVID-19 has been referred to as a ‘syndemic’, a synthesis of epidemics coming together. Ten years of a Government policy of austerity, regressive cuts to spending on social care, historical patterns of cuts to public health, cuts to welfare of families and children, cuts in education spending and the closure of children’s centres has left our public services, including the NHS, in a depleted state and a welfare system that disadvantages the lower income groups. Then came the COVID-19 virus, a biological agent that magnified the fault-lines of inequality that exist in society and took advantage of increasing rates of non-communicable disease in our country, leading to the worst death toll in England.
MrMayor, do you think the Government has learned from the COVID-19 pandemic about the relationship between the social determinants of health and outcomes?

Sadiq Khan: No. I spent some time reading the report from SirMichaelMarmot and the review he did 10 years on from his last report [The Marmot Review 10 Years On, 2020]. That reinforces the points and sentiments raised in your question. It was not just hollowing out Public Health England, it was not just the NHS being starved of resources and having reorganisations that were unhelpful, but also inequalities in our society have been made worse over the last 10 years. All this pandemic has not simply exposed them but has exacerbated them. It is really important that the recovery missions we have, Onkar, address some of these structural inequalities in our society. We cannot allow those to fester or get worse.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor. Of course, the other thing you will agree with is that the NHS was under stress even before the pandemic due to the Government policies that I mentioned previously. NHS staff have been at the forefront of the national response to the pandemic. NHS staff have been the heroes that we all clapped on our doorsteps. Even the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer clapped for the NHS from Downing Street. In fact, the Prime Minister owes his life to the excellent work of NHS staff.
However, now the Prime Minister, [The Rt Hon] BorisJohnson [MP], has slapped the nurses in the face with his humiliating salary increase of 1%, which in real terms is a pay cut. What do you think will be the impact of this on the morale of the nurses and the impact on your efforts to reduce London’s 11,000 vacant nursing posts? What do you think the impact of all this will be on them?

Sadiq Khan: I know the impact. I spent some time this week and some time last week speaking to and listening to NHS staff including nurses. They are heartbroken. They are angry. Also, they are unclear how they are going to make ends meet because for a variety of reasons, not least inflation and other issues like the cost of living, a 1% pay increase ends up being a pay cut. The short point is that the claps we gave them do not pay the rent. They do not pay the utility bills. It is no comfort if you are the family of somebody who works on the NHS staff to have this from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. I would ask them even now to reconsider and give our nurses and NHS staff the pay deal and the pay rise they deserve.

Onkar Sahota: I know, MrMayor, that you recognise the high cost of living in London and I want to thank you for prioritising the nursing profession on the front line for keyworker housing in London. Hopefully, that will materialise and we can give some reassurance to our frontline staff that London will look after them. Thank you, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

London’s Recovery

Joanne McCartney: How will you bring Londoners together to support each other as part of your recovery work?

Sadiq Khan: The pandemic has shown us how willing Londoners are to step up, come together, and support each other. The building strong communities mission of the London Recovery Programme is looking to build on that incredible community spirit by ensuring all Londoners have access to a community hub. The London Recovery Board has made a clear commitment that London, its communities and civil society groups, should influence, shape and participate fully in London’s recovery. I am incredibly proud of the extensive public and community consultation we did on recovery before the London Recovery Board even met. The nine recovery missions were informed by that work.
We are clear that the recovery programme is not just about what the GLA and London Councils can do, but it is about bringing together a range of partners to contribute to a shared set of goals. It is no exaggeration to say it is a citizen-powered recovery effort. Throughout the pandemic, Talk London, the London Community Response Survey, and roundtable discussions with community groups, have continued to provide a live picture of London disparities that has constantly informed our work. Just this week we launched a new Talk London site. We now have 60,000 members, 9,000 of whom joined the site after March 2020 to take part in recovery conversations. All those ensure that there are multiple approaches and opportunities for Londoners of all backgrounds to engage with the recovery programme.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you, MrMayor. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. One of the things that the last year has shown us is that Londoners are willing and want to support each other, particularly those that are less well off than they are. Londoners have really stepped up over the last year, including many organisations.
Can I ask, though, do you have a strategic plan or plans, along with London Councils, to provide longer-term funding to support these local networks and organisations? It would be such a shame to lose them.

Sadiq Khan: Yes. One of the challenges councils face is obviously massive cuts from central Government and also not being reimbursed money from the pandemic, so we are doing what we can to support councils in this really important area. A few things we are doing to address this issue. The London Community Response Fund. We are working with groups across London and I want to thank all of them for the remarkable work they are doing to pool our resources, to make sure we have groups across London. Some of the civil society groups funding and civic futures funding is also helping this really important work.
We know the pandemic has not just exposed but exacerbated inequalities. That is why we do what we can from City Hall to leverage in more support for these communities across our city. I am hoping that the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) later on this year will give us the long-term funding we need through councils and others to support our citizens.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. I know that London’s contribution to the Community Response Fund has meant that many projects in my constituency of Enfield and Haringey have been funded, including, for example, the 422 Foundation, helping young people with mentoring, but also academic support. Churches and faith groups throughout my constituency are providing support to the Mayor’s deliverables, so that was really welcome. I just want to check, if I can with you, how are you going to ensure that funding is targeted to the most vulnerable Londoners but also the most affected areas of communities? If I think of my constituency, areas such as Edmonton and Tottenham have been particularly hit.

Sadiq Khan: You made a really important point. This is a really good example where process matters to good decisions being made. What the London Recovery Board is doing is trying to involve as many communities as possible, who are not usually part of the conversations, to be involved in the conversation and to advise the decision-making. That includes disabled groups, minority groups, faith groups, community groups, and others. It is really important that I reassure you, it is not me deciding by myself in relation to my recovery mission. It is being part of the really good work across London. That will carry on should I have the honour of being re-elected on 6May.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Navin Shah: Thank you.